DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 383 208 FL 023 008

AUTHOR Ishikawa, LuliTITLE English/Tapanese Professional Interpretation: Its

Linguistic and Conceptual Problems.PUB DATE 95

NOTE 19p.; For complete volume, see FL 023 004.PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Journal

Articles (080)JOURNAL CIT Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics; n6

p41-57 1995

EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Contrastive Linguistics; Cultural Differences;

Discourse Analysis; *English; *English for SpecialPurposes; Foreign Countries; Grammar; *InterpretiveSkills; *Japanese; *Language Processing; LanguageResearch; Languages for Special Purposes; LinguisticTheory; Scientific Research; Technology; Time;*Translation

IDENTIFIERS *Simultaneous Interpretation

ABSTRACTA study of simultaneous interpretation from Japanese

to English focused on problems inherent in simultaneous languageprocessing. Data were drawn from a discussion session at aninternational conference of physicians concerning nuclear war.Transcription of the Japanese source text (romanized), Englishproduct, and a gloss of lexical equivalents in Japanese (all appendedhere) were analyzed for syntactic differences, ear-voice span,lexical use, grammar, discoursal links, flow of discourse, andprofessional techniques for dealing with slips, errors, orunpredictable development of discourse logic. The interpreter'scommand of the languages and experience in translation weredetermined to be adequate. Problems arising in the interpretation arefound in five categories (ear-voice span; lexical errors/mistakes;differences between structures in Japanese and English; sententialerrors; and discoursal errors) and discussed at the linguistic andsociolinguistic levels. It is concluded that Japanese/Englishsimultaneous interpretation requires greater awareness of discoursaland cultural differences between the two languages. It is suggestedthat further investigation into this aspect of translation beundertaken, particularly in Japanese-to-English translation, and thattranslator training incorporate these aspects of language processingas well as the technical elements of translation. (Contains 10references.) (MSE)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

English/Japanese Professional Interpretation: Its Linguisticand Conceptual Problems

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Lull Ishikawa

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice CI Educabonal Rostren end improvement

(EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

G document nes been reproduced ssr sivect from the person or organizationonpinsting it

O Minor chines have been made 10 improvefPrOdUCt.On Quality

Points 01 vtto or opinions slated in this dOCu-mini 60 not n4KSSanly fle0,Sen1 officialOERI position or policy

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ENGLISH/JAPANESE PROFESSIONAL INTERPRETATION:ITS LINGUISTIC AND CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS

Lull Ishikawa (IALS)

Abstract

This paper is a study of professional simultaneous interpretation in Japanese and Englishbased on comparative analysis of grammar and discourse. Data recorded at an internationalconference is analysed. The problems encountered by the interpreters, mainly due to linguisticdifferences between the two languages, are revealed as being also due to other factors, suchas cultural differences, psychological pressure and inadequate training. It is concluded thatJapanese/English simultaneous interpretation requires greater awareness of discoursal andcultural differences between the two languages.

1. Background

Japanese/English interpretation is renowned for its difficulty. Yet there appears to be no empiricallinguistic study in this area. The professional problems of simultaneous interpretation are highly complexas they concern not only technical and linguistic matters but also psychological pressure or even politicalenvironment. In order to clarify the complex web of this special language use, and draw implications forbetter w:ys of learning/teaching professional interpretation, a detailed analysis of data collected in a realprofessional setting is desirable.

2. Definition of terms : translation versus interpretation

According to Newmark:

In general terms, translation is a cover term that comprises any method of transfer, oral and written,from writing to speech, from speech to writing, of a message from one language to another.

However, he makes the following distinction:

The term 'translation' is confined to the written, and the term 'interpretation' to the spokenlanguage.

(Newmark 1991: 35-6)

2.1 Translation

Under the category of translation, there are many sub-categories. For example, texts are largely dividedinto 3 types, 'scientific-technological', 'institutional-cultural', and 'literary' (ibid.).

This is a subject-type categorisation. On the other hand, the reproduction purpose can categorise thetranslation types differently according to the degree of faithfulness to the original text. Any professionaltranslator or interpreter would agree that it is crucial to represent her client's intention in the original text(source language) as faithfully as possible. This faithfulness is called the translator's law by Nida. The'basic requirements' that constitute the law are as follows:

EDINBURGH WORKING PAPERS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS, number 6, (1995) ISSN 0959-2253

1. making sense;2. conveying the spirit and manner of the original;3. having a natural and easy form of expression;4. producing a similar response.

(Vida cited in Hatim and Mason 1990:16)

The 'law' implies that 'faithfulness' concerns the author's original intention ('sense, spirit and manner')

and the readers' reception ('response') and expectation ('natural, easy expression'). The mediator is the

translator who operates on a continuum as below. Hatim and Mason recognise a range of translator's

attitudes towards the text - 'author-oriented' and 'reader-centred' translation (ibid.) This may be

expressed as a continuum:

author-oriented< reader-centred

making sense

conveying the spirit andmanner of the original

having a natural and easyform of expressionproducing a similar response

In other words, the translator is responsible for the balancing of the requirements of both ends. And the

balancing act will allow for variation in the end product without violating the law.

In fact, many translators and translation researchers believe modifications are necessary for the sake of

loyalty to the intentions of the original text. Sager justifies modification in his article on quality and

standards of translation as follows:

While translation is essentially concerned with the problems of interlingual transfer of messages, the

practice of translation requires modifications of texts which are ndependent of the languages

involved. It is therefore convenient to distinguish between the obligatory modifications of linguistic

transfer with concomitant pragmatic changes conditioned by cultural differences and the deliberatemodifications which are necessitated by a change in function of the translated text. This latter type

of modification (selection, reduction, expansion of text) could theoretically be performed prior or

subsequent to translation, but in practice these two processes are performed simultaneously.(Sager 1989:92)

In any case, translators are ethically bound to operate on the text with the utmost care, in order to be

faithful to the original text. Delisle's model of a 'heuristic of translation' (see Appendix 1) attempts to

display the complex procedure: 'an intellectual activity located at the junction of thought, language, and

reality'. According to Delisle,

Translating requires skills in four broad areas: language, general knowledge, comprehension, and

re-expression... the translator must combine linguistic skill with encyclopedic knowledge of the

realities comprising the physical and mental universe. One can only translate well what one knows

well, and extra-linguisitc knowledge is essential to understanding and reformulating message.(Delisle 1988:109)

Therefore, when studying translation or interpretation, not only pure linguistic elements but also

knowledge of the world should be taken into account. This applies to the aural-oral equivalent,

interpretation.

442

2.2 Interpretation

Interpretation shares its fundamental principles the translator's law and the implied complexities - withtranslation. However, since it is an aural/oral activity, revision of the end product, which is essential toachieve coherent and faithful reproduction of the original is usually impossible. Obviously this causesfurther technical difficulties which we will discuss later.

Professional interpretation falls into two categories, consecutive interpretation and simultaneousinterpretation.

In consecutive interpretation, each sentence is not interpreted. Instead the context or the gist is interpretedafter certain segments of the original talk by the speaker. The segments can be a few sentences or even alonger unit of the discourse. The speaker stops periodically to allow the interpreter time to insert herversion of what he has said.

On the other hand, in simultaneous interpretation, the two languages are synchronized. The speaker doesnot stop to give time for the interpretation.

2.3 General advantages and disadvantages of consecutive versus simultaneous interpretation

In consecutive interpretation the interpreter has more opportunity to digest the full meaning of the originalsource text and to encode his/her interpretation in well-formed sentences, as a piece of planned discourse.Thus the product can be more accurate in two respects: ti) greater fidelity to the source text; and (ii) fewerlexical and grammatical errors in the target text. A disadvantage of consecutive interpretation is thatsuccess depends on the interpreter's summarising skills: his/her ability to pick out the salient points andrelate them to each other coherently. There is some risk that the final product may deviate from thespeaker's intentions. The interpreter could 'misinterpret' the original in the process of reducing it to asummary.

On the other hand, simultaneous interpretation does not allow the interpreter time to digest and compose asummary of the original text. Thus the product is more likely to be closer to the development of theoriginal discourse. And most of all, it is time-efficient, which is one of the main reasons whysimultaneous interpretation is ousting the consecutive at international conferences. But this time factor isalso the greatest cause of technical and psychological pressure on the interpreter. The interpreter isvirtually groping for what comes next in the logical development of the original discourse. If the pressureis too high, more errors, mistakes or slips can occur.

ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE

CONSECUTIVE More time available forinterpretation

Time-consuming

SIMULTANEOUS Time-efficient Interpreter may lose track(because of the unpredictability)

The above are from the point of view of the interpreter. But there is another, most important, aspect ofinterpretation, which is intelligibility to the audience. From the audience's point of view, simultaneousinterpretation may sound not only more efficient but also more comprehensible, because we imagine afluent discourse with a natural flow. On the other hand, one might assume that consecutive interpretationis rather distracting because of its interrupted discourse.

Is this true? We will find out using actual data of simultaneous interpretation sampled at an internationalconference. But first, we will look into the details of skills involved in simultaneous interpretation.

43

3. SimultgagiluainierprItaliQn

3.1 Types of simultaneous interpretation and their technical problems

Our first concern is the technical nature of simultaneous interpretation in general. We will clarify thecharacter of this activity, then discuss its particular technical difficulties both for the interpreter and the

audience.

Within simultaneous interpretation, there are various types of operation. For example, for a businessnegotiation, 'whispering' is often used, and at a large international conference a pair of interpreters foreach language may go into a booth with headphones on. They usually take turns. One can help the other

by giving notes while s/he is performing. The interpretation product will reach the audience viamicrophone and earphone.

There is also another means of categorization according to the amount of preparation and rehearsal done

by the speaker and his/her interpreter. This is called 'briefing'.

Usually, in Japan at least, the simultaneous interpreter is given some information about the spoken text

which s/he is going to intepret. Prior to the actual speech, the speaker is supposed to give copies of the

lecture, or at least some memos, to the simultaneous interpreter. Ideally the simultaneous interpreter and

the speaker will have a discussion on the content and how to interpret it. For broadcasting, a simultaneous

interpreter may listen to the tape at least a few times in order to get the gist and take some notes. This

thorough preparation is crucial for a satisfactory interpretation.

But the other type of interpretation is absolutely spontaneous. This is generally perceived as the most

demanding interpretation of all. The greater unpredictability plays havoc with the preservation of the

original discourse. The pressure on the simultaneous interpreter is described by Glemet as follows:

As you are following the speaker you start a sentence. But as you start a sentence you are taking a

step in the dark, you are mortgaging your grammatical future: the original sentence may suddenlybe turned in such a way that your translation of its end cannot easily be reconciled with your

translation of its start.(Glemet in Gerver 1976:168)

Since it is a synchronized performance of the speaker and the interpreter, the interpreting end-product

heavily depends on the speaker/intepreter relationship. Robinson says:

The interpreter may have a good feeling about one speaker, may feel that he or she is eminentlypredictable... Another speaker is different; ...even before he or she begins to speak the interpreter

knows there is going to be trouble... words come out in a sudden flood of almost incoherent

verbiage, which then stops while the speaker digs ferociously at an ear, giving the interpreter time

to catch up, of course, but along with the time a case of the heebie-jeebies. The easiest speaker tofollow may also be the most boring, so that the interpreter finds it hard to stay alert.

(Robinson 1991: 28-9)

3.2 Scientific analysis of simultaneous interpretation

The above is of course a subjective analysis of the technical difficulties of simultaneous interpretation.

However, this clearly suggests the psychological pressure on the interpreter during her performance.

44

More scientific analysis has been done based upon a theory of 'ear-voice span', the amount of time cinterpreter takes according to the textual difficulty.

Gerver found that 'the optimal input rate for simultaneous interpretation was between 95 and 120 wordsper minute' (Gerver 1976:172-73). And this has had a practical effect for professional interpreters. Forexample Hara, a Japanese-English interpreter, says in her guide book for interpreters:

Prior to the lecture at briefing, it is advisable to ask your speaker to read his paper at a speed of 2 to3 minutes per 230 words. (Hara 1994:42)

So it is clear that there is a strong correlation between the speed of input and interpreters' performance.

What we are concerned with in this paper is the correlation between the linguistic or conceptual items inthe text and the interpreter's performance. Since it is impossible to separate the time factor and thecontent factor, the data is designed to show both. When a problem is identified, it will be looked at fromboth points of view: possible time factor and possible linguistic or conceptual factors.

In order to reduce the amount of culture-specific variables, highly technical scientific texts are preferred.Newmark says that the more technical and specialized the text is, the less culture-specific knowledge itrequires. (Newmark 1991)

4. Data

The setting was an international conference of an organization called 1PPNW' (International Physicians forPrevention of Nuclear War) in Hiroshima, Japan in 1989. This data was collected during free discussionand questions following a panel discussion on 'Chemical and Biological Weapons and IPPNW.'

The data was originally audio-recorded, then transcribed on a graph paper as shown in Appendix 2.Every 0.5 second was marked on the graph paper. Underneath are three lines:Line 1: the original speech transcribed with romanization of the Japanese sounds.Line 2: a gloss giving the lexical equivalents in the source language (speaker's language).Line 3: the interpreter's product.

A comparison of lines 1 and 2 with line 3 shows syntactic differences and ear-voice span.

The data was also transcribed as in Appendices 3 and 4. The flat transcription of the interpreter'sperformance in English (Appendix 4) is designed to highlight the contents of the discourse - lexical use,grammar, discoursal links, the flow of discourse, as well as the professional techniques, for example, hows/he deals with slips, errors, mistakes or unpredictable development ofthe logic of the discourse.

'Ear-voice span: '... when the input language is straightforward, the interpreter will be a regular 2 or 3 seconds behind thespeaker. But when an unexpected textual difficulty emerges, or the speaker suddenly speeds up, the delay may increase, with aconsequential 'knock-on' effect that may take some time to resolve. During this period, when he ear-voice span is several secondslong, the interpreter's cognitive linguistic processing abilities are under great pressure.' (C.ystal 1987:349)

'IPPNW (International Physicians Prevention of Nuclear War) was founded in 1980, led by two prominent cardiologists, Dr.Evgueni Chazov of the (former) USSR Cardiological Institute and Dr. Bernard Lown of Harvard School of Public Health.Physicians from the former Soviet Union and the USA held the first meeting from which the international organisation, consistingof 20,000 physicians, and scientists in various fields from more than 80 countries, emerged. Their aims are: to inform and educatethe public world-wide about the medical and scientific consequences of nuclear war; and to demonstrate the value of cross-nationalcooperation on medical and scientific researches for the prevention of man-made catastrophes. Issues dealt will range frommedicine chemical-biological science to social welfare, human rights and politics. It-PNW was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1985for 'considerable service to mankind by spreading authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophicconsequences of atomic welfare.'

45

In addition, a tentative ideal translation is given of the Japanese original. The definition of an idealinterpretation is itself uncertain o` 'ourse; but this might be called an example of an interpretation which isas close as possible to the original "te sense that it follows the logical development of the discourse step-by-step using each lexical equivai nts. This will give some idea to non-Japanese. speakers of how theoriginal Japanese speech is composed. And it will later be used for a discussion of cultural variation of'logic' in discourse.

5. Analysis

5.1 General view

The transcriptions show that the discourse of the interpreted text is full of hesitations, pauses, andparaphrasing. There is also significant topic shift (from the speaker's personal experience to his protestagainst American government's new scientific project).

Because of these factors, the product is, to some extent, distracting to the audience contradicting our initialassumptions about simultaneous interpretation. The data given in Appendix 2 include signs of non-fluentdiscourse such as:

1. long pause (a long period of silence in the middle of a speech makes the audience nervous);2. interpreter's voice shaking or suddenly changing pitch;3. interpreter's sighs, hesitation noises etc.

Interpretation problems due to the interpreter's poor command of the languages or lack of experience

One might wonder whether this interpreter can speak good English, or understand Japanese. When aninterpreter makes mistakes, her command of languages is questioned whether justifiably or not. Shouldthe problems here be attributed to the interpreter's poor command of the languages?

Actually, the interpreter in question is claimed to have an outstanding command of English (at leastTOEFL 630 or TOEIC 860) even before she took up this occupation. Of course results of Englishproficiency tests do not necessarily guarantee her native-like command of English, yet unless proficiencytests like TOEFL are totally valueless, we should give the interpreter some credit for her command ofEnglish.> 0 Command of the target language (English) is not inadequate.

Then the next question is her command of Japanese. We know that she is a native speaker and judgingfrom her background and normal conversation, she has an excellent command of Japanese (I met thisinterpreter at work, and she does speak sophisticated Japanese).

0 Command of the source language (Japanese) is not inadequate.

What about her work experience? Apparently, she has considerable experience in interpreting forinternational conferences.

0 The interpreter does not lack experience.

On these facts, a possible explanation of the problems of the interpretation - the interpreter's command oflanguages is poor is rejected.

Interpretation problems due to the original speaker's poor performance.

846

The next question is whether the original speaker's speech was poorly intelligible. It is hard to defineintelligiLlity in an objective sense. Although it may not have been easily comprehended by theinterpreter, it could still have been a perfect speech for the audience, or vice versa. This argumentinvolves individual variables, so the quality of the original speech will be examined only in the mostgene, d; way: how the audience responded to it.

In this case, the speech was generally accepted by the Japanese audience without any obvious linguisticproblem. Probably it is fair to say the original speech was perfectly acceptable. If not an excellent speechthat would appeal to an international audience, it is still a typical Japanese speech of the kind. The maincause of the interpretat;on problems does not appear to be a fault in the original speech.

Then, is the cause of this unintelligibility dependent on the nature of simultaneous interpretation?

5.2 Points to be identified in the analysis of the data

Let us refer to tl,e transcript of the performance (see Appendix 2). As we said, the first line shows theoriginal speech by the Japanese physiologist. The second line is a word-for-word translation inserted toshow the word order in the Japanese original. The third line is the actual interpretation. The numbers onthe graph above the first lines show every second of time. Thus, the graph shows us the ear-voice span.On this graph, we can identify the following points:

1. Ear-voice span2. Lexical errors/mistakes (equivalent word, connotation etc.)3. Differences between structures in Japanese/English4. Sentential errors/mistakes (e.g. agglutinating vs inflecting language, tense, etc.)5. Discoursal errors/mistakes (e.g. conjunctions, references, logical development, etc.)

The ear-voice span will not only mark technical difficulties, but also suggest the ,.:ause of the difficultiesthat the interpreter might have had at each particular time.

5.3 Linguistic and sociolinguistic problems

At the lexical level, quite surprisingly for a near-native speaker of English, there are numerous errors andmistakes in the performance. There are problems with articles, prepositions, which are typical of a nativespeaker of Japanese, and confusion of similar words like 'contrary to our consciousness... conscience...ness'. And there are more stylistic problems. Also there are many words which were not interpreted atall.

However, as far as intelligibility is concerned, seemingly it is not only the words that affect thecomprehension.

The most obvious cause of the problems at sentential level is the difference between Japanese, an SOVlanguage, and English which is SVO. The difference in word order means delay in ear-voice span. It is awell-known fact that Japanese into English and German subordinate clauses are one of the mostproblematic areas for simultaneous interpretation, as is pointed out by Crystal. (Crystal 1987:349)

Another problem at the structural level is, as.we expected, that of tense/aspect.Two main reasons come to mind :

1. Japanese verbs appear at the very end of long sentence with lengthy insertions. Thus in Englishinterpretation, the interpreter has to predict what time reference the speaker is going to use.

47 9

2. Japanese time reference is more aspectual - i.e. perfective and imperfective - than English. In

other words, the concept of 'time' is not identical.

Next come the problems at discoursal level. This is an analysis which looks at the data as a whole text.

For example, combination of sentences, referential markers to previous sentences or patagraph, andlogical development (coherence) are studied.

In the audio-recorded data, the speech sounds rather incoherent towards the end, especially when the topic

shifted from the physiologist's experience to a protest against Japan's development of chemical/biological

weapons seemingly under political pressure from the USA.

According to the ear-voice span, there is a significant delay at this point of 118-128 sec. Here, the unit;'Solewasoletoshite-soshite seibutsu heiki' is poorly interpreted in 129.5 -134 seconds.

It was as late as 129 sec. when the interpreter started. By the time she started the interpretation with a

conjunction `solewasoletoshite' (roughly meaning, 'that-is-that'), the original speaker had moved onto the

next topic, a news broadcast about America's political pressure on Japan to develop chemical and

biological weapons. This delay seems to have been caused by two factors.

1. A knock-on effect from the previous topic - the physiologist's own experience of rejection of hissuperior's order to conduct inhuman research for military purposes.

2. The conjunction 'solewasoletoshite' marks a change of topic. Normally it is translated as 'by thewa'. The interpreter may have chosen to wait until the new topic was clear to her.

Also within 119-127 sec., the interpreter spends 2.5 seconds on hesitation noise ('err'). Here, her

interpretation is clearly disturbed. This disturbance occurs while she is closing the previous topic to move

onto the next. This fact reinforces our impression that there is a cause of linguistic difficulty related to the

conjunction. The conjunction 'solewasoletoshite' actually is a combination of 5 words.

5.4 Choice of demonstratives

Japanese Sole wa sole to shiteEnglishequivalents

Grammar

that

demonstrative

anaphoric ref'.

is

particle

topic mrkr

that

demonstrative

anph.ref.

as

particle(Aux.Vb 'tali')

statement mrkr

do (make)

Verb 'sum' + Aux.'ta'lin imperative

mood]make (perfective)

that is that-as-00-remains-(so)

i* That's that; By the way; So much for that, etc. (common translation)

But this has a culturally specific meaning behind it which is:

c> that (what has been said previously) is made to exist there as is

4 Bearing this in mind (conceptual translation)

IL 048

Referential problemThe demonstrative 'that' which acts as a conjunction here in Japanese actually marks an anaphoricreference. Altogether, it means, 'Let us make the previous topic remain there as it is' in Japanese. Andthe discoursal connotation is 'Bearing this in mind'. Therefore, a better translation of this topic-shiftconjunction would he:

that was my own experience of scientific research for military use. Now, bearing this in mind,

In this way, the cumbersome topic shift in English is erased as follows,

... I rejected my senior's order. That was my own experience of scientific research for militaryuse. Now, bearing this in mind, what concerns me recently is the following topic the recentproject on the development of chemical/biological weapons....'

Deixis illuminating cultural mindComing back to the 'that' in Japanese (the demonstrative KOLE), e can find another culturally boundlinguistic cause for the interpretation problem.

KOLE is one of three Japanese spatial deictic items.Morphemes KO, SO, A indicate distance between the speaker and the entity referred to. The entity caneither be concrete or abstract as above. The diagram below shows the idea.

ri1- ALE SOLE KOLE ALEOLE SOLE, Distal! '(> Medial <=> Proximal < Media * Distal1--

The Speaker_ J

These deictic items are subjective to the speaker's judgment of physical and psychological distancebetween the speaker him/herself and the thing or notion (either concrete or abstract) referred to.

Therefore, which distance indicator the speaker uses implies the speaker's attitude towards the thingreferred to. For example, if the speaker is talking about something abstract, the closer the spatial deixisthe speaker used, the more relevant the referred item is, to what he is talking about in his discourse. Inother words, when this delxis-wa-deixis-to-shite is used as a discoursal linker, the speaker can indicatehis view of how closely related are the passage he has just finished and the next passage he will produce -how relevant the two passages he uttered are to each other.

Also, the deictic items indicate the speaker's recognition of the closeness to his audience. In the three-stepdistance marking system, KOLE is exclusive to the speaker. SOLE is more inviting to the audience -sharing an entity somewhere between the speaker and the audience. ALE is away from both the speakerand the audience.

49 1 1

ALE wa ALE

ALE wa ALE

1. The speaker's chooses a demonstrative as referential item to show his view about the degree of

relevance of the topic to the previous topic.

2. Each choice of a demonstrative indicates the speaker's expectation of the degree of speaker-audience

involvement (i.e. sharing an entity, which is the idea that the speaker has previously talked about -protesting against superior's inhuman order even risking his life.)

KOLEI am actually a physiologist + Kole-wa-kole-to-shite + I am protesting against America's new chemical

weapon..= I am primarily a physiologist, but at the same time/ it's my business, I am protesting against America's

chemical weapon.

SOLEI am actually a physiologist + Sole-wa-sole-to-shite + I am protesting against America's new chemical

weapon..= My occupation is physiology (and as *you may imagine, I care about human health), bearing this in

mind, I'm protesting against America's chemical weapon.

* inclusive. invitation to the audience's empathy.

ALEI am .ctually a physiologist + Ale-wa-ale-to-shite / am protesting against America's new chemical

weapon..Yes, it's true that I am a physiologist, but that's irrelevant, I am protesting against America's new

chemical weapon.(This distancing indicator suggests that probably he is doing something that a physiologist is not normally

associated with He might be actively protesting against America's new chemical weapon...]

1250

Spatial Deixis meaning Relevance degree AudienceInvolvement

1. Kole-wa-Kole-to-shite

As this fact remainshere...

Proximation Highlyrelevant

Exclusive(only concerns S)

2. Sole-wa-Sole-to-shite

(So much for that but)Bearing this in mind...

Mediation(although the topicchanges in fact it is

still) Relevant

Inclusive(Concerns both S& A)

3. Ale-wa-Ale-to-shite

Be that as it may.... butit's irrelevant...

Distancing Irrelevant Distant from boththe speaker and theaudience

5.5 Sociolinguistic factors

The above interpretation may still leave us slightly confused. The two things, the speaker's ownexperience and the scientific project of the Japanese Self-Defense Force, do not appear to be directlyrelevant to each other.

Relevance is, to some extent, a culturally biased matter. Successful speech is convincing. It is convincingbecause it in line with the listener's expectations of an acceptable logical development, a succession ofrelevant discourse. Relevance presupposes the following considerations shared between the peopleengaged in the verbal communication.

1. what to say2. how much to say3. how (in what fashion) to say it

Grice called these rules the 'cooperative principle' which he reduced to the following four maxims;

1. The maxim of quality2. The maxim of quantity3. The maxim of relevance4. The maxim of manner

According to Grice, these maxims make for a successful verbal communication. However, the problem is,recent research in discourse and relevance suggest that the operation of these maxims varies from cultureto culture. For example, in the original Japanese speech, the physiologist's personal experience inrejecting his superior's inhuman order displays his moral excellence, therefore his protest against therecent research must be accepted and appreciated by the audience. Although this sounds far-fetched, itcan be explained by Japanese social codes. Total obedience towards one's senior is an unwritten law, yethis obligations and conscience led him to risk his life to protest against the senior's order. This fact ismost appealing to the Japanese mind. It satisfies the norm of the virtue, the way of a 'pure and straightholy' life. Particularly the fact that he had almost sacrificed his life for the sake of other lives is expectedto stir up deep empathy in Japanese minds, creating closeness between the speaker and the audience. Andthe closeness rejects further explanation about why the speaker brought up the topic of the recentchemical/biological weapons. It likewise rejects an close examination of his views on the topic.

It is important to re-emphasize this deliberate creation of 'closeness' from the grammatical aspect. Noticethe conjunction SOLE-WA-SOLE-TO-SHITE falls into the medial category of the Japanese three-wayspatial demonstratives.

1351

This cultural/social and conceptual aspect of discourse makes the interpretation highly complex. Needless

to say, it is almost impossible to perform simultaneous interpretation when it comes to conceptual

differences.

6 Conclusion

As we have seen briefly, interpretation involves not only technical and linguistic difficulties but also

conceptual problems. Yet, the current education system for interpreters in Japan does not emphasize this

aspect. Rather an enormous amount of th..! and effort is spent on technical aspects such as memorizing

useful expressions, and so on.

The data suggests that the main problems are the conceptual aspects within and behind the linguistic items.

Investigation into this area at various linguistic levels, morphological, structural, discoursal, sociological

etc., may illuminate code-switching between Japanese and English, in which more efficient and accurate

ways of interpretation may be sought.

References

Brislin R.W. (ed.) 1976. TranslantaApplicatinnaanilleseard. New York: Wiley.

Crystal D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: CUP.

De lisle J. 1989. Translation: an Interpretive Apprnath, translated by P. Logan and M. Creery.

Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Gerver D. 1976. 'Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and a model.' in Brislin (ed.)

1976: 165-207.

Hara F. 1994. inlespietation as a Profession. Tokyo: The Japan Times.

Hatim B. and I. Mason 1990. Discourse and the Translator London: Longman.

Newmark P. 1991. About Translation London: Multilingual Matters.

Picken, C. (ed.) 1989. The Translator's Handbook London: As lib.

Robinson D. 1991. The Translator's Turn. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Sager J.C. 1989. (2nd ed.) 'Quality and standards the evaluation of translations' in Picken, C.(ed.).

1989.

14 52

Appendix 1De lisle's model of Heuristics of Translation

Figure 4Heuristics of Translation

Compre-hension

Reformu-lation

Verifica-tion

Source Text

Original Utterance

Decoding of Linguistic Signs(Language as Reference Point)

Comprehension of Meaning(Reality as Reference Point)

NONVERBAL STAGE(ConceptsTurned Over to Non-

Linguistic Cerebral Mechanisms)

Reverbalization of Concepts

Tentative Solutions

Verification

Selection of a Solution

Re-expression of Utterance

Target Text

53 15

FirstInterpre-

tation

Reasoningby Analogy

SecondInterpre-

tation

(De lisle i988: 69)

, 1- -F-r-.F:i-i - --r- 1: ..1 :, ,

701

(Alidikin.I.W.O,14,

:

-

A

,

...-f.2 1---,--1, s,.. , 3 : 6 . 1-71'41 .1.

IA ,...,...;

_AL, '

1. 1

.i:) itiCtiRkUlkke., t MINA., i, Al;11C:AA-0 .htballiAl4 to:r :

i , ! . ,:(1 4 kicski sc). -411 W.' to& X.,..

1 .1 i ' j ,

-1-4.. I_VIPoi:C, X.. L 1 .

1495cl ;ka,41 :: .;t1,

iw: o-rIS .:

I //fit._

1447 (1, L.;-I.,iiii:

, .I

101

,1111'-V'F::::::io:.

.t..1

I

t ...t,

a:

ll'_

1cila5 lereVdtr,I in

a.,,I:, :;-.

.A.".4I:1 L44 lee. i eclat* my 1W

I i: 1 , 1..-,1- i

.

!1,1:,

'] i"" es_ '''

A41'0134. C-k -Civiirsi 312 tti'10,1ji.t......... 1,3citlyan.,., . iliv.pratispl _ ._ JWA.4IASO , 1 1p.

.Ls 1.41+7 IPhysloiO3/ . physAty.+ I cay..a'th-inq k 1 Id..1 I ME .4.:.

A,

letit luckl fcribi;.

,tr, ±... ram ci'ffisic.1:4w;eft'ecialyk iiig.frotiyilt is : .' : !I ..is,-)td,4 .fffp!,, ,717 ? 1 1 , i

1 - :1 ! , I 1 1- , ,,

41:0....1: :IA i , .)z s.1- . i 14.

.4-i-1- i 11 I-414* :

kf.ati;f4"-T,c;eiyeins-eMit

*itcne ivm.r

..i..7.-..:

ME

PT

j

;,..

!

::....'

r ;1-

2..'

t

:

't .'

.:'

Vi;ii

! 1 -,

.1 ..14.Bitat'Aatitilmi, 's/40/4; no 1 Aciad ...1...i.t/ratha4,4,, , ,e , . ! --. -4 . tn.+ 1- V dim ioti..1 riliReb indivisimi: cf filttsid . ._1_ ;1. ; Arrophri

d ii, Ar ft co I 'Lot. isy,-..1 : ti At d,A4,), .ievimmy d I

1 .

:541,. ,.,

-.. j.iii-.

.i.....

L..:i..?..Wm, 46h!, o eivik64 wa;s4i,;:iii

tyC 1 ') re Cerl. 4111 1 '11

. .4 44--1 yq .! ..iiP- 09 . ! 5/1 .)

ha. ' i gJ II' i A Wilnina: Watti'cli-o ioya Iiii hinge,' nO tadu liti, ark-,.',.._ jagn _. . ..o,b',line "S° C i ( ) 5 6 Cal kd .4411°I. l'Y huotin itiaonien lAbdoeaal.Gfitziow

' ,..,..t._.1i,i__N

...Abdottie , .:i)!f

:: ,, .., i . ,_itiq Lkt I tc&soe:Fott,To

; I I

.'beic.Plif _t

.i._:.. ;

I.

j_ . :

lAA jit witiSrtr.. 1 : : L VC..1 tiyclec I bi- hy- 4+601rtztt 1

i _1. iii . ! I i I '. I _F.:':-

'. .:: .11\I

) Si aI .

p.r6itt sosink....We

'make lewd i4eri'ith I

iim A biC:PA ly

. 'E

.,i_..j4311,

, 4'1.....ciei 1 ..1.*:ju /no

r4f/e',. OA,

;os t hkftl

I

111s,.1.

.. . j: i , ?villas/0.3A .. SotOIKeiciyo, n.i Strilvi1.strert theaqii .. fintesline...grittrL. a utSid e c*Iitt., ) 4,./ ..i. , . , I .., , I h of.

k dee. gra waptetrxtr Me oAlomind ispaqL I ' i .

wa ..4. do 1 , i

! ., ,

..ika n'ar-H,.. kusy q. . .

M

,....yi

OM.,,, er.I X, wet. 1.4=11Eli!! i

isak:...

.

Ella) . i L.,

ii ne;iii 0 uhkshife, ..

su i ordet- Ireceire ......4:1/di

p,aSiVIVII 1,telf, &'J to -the hrlewl

Ll I i._, _..195! , ' '3- ' ' 7i 7/ ' ! I i-__Alintilili9fre kra _d44)17:1.'1lb* Aar, a ruliol_jaihifiinttokorpoiriazi* &fu

V. M I atiat captive. or I fore.p. clye dito1,15,07'I! C? 4.14,4i/l 112!".44V to Ow cias*. ()/ur at (cati-yo (j.),I phiVilifflork !he litttrml

,,'mkt

00th

AcisikitakfErive

114'4'40it:

_', .

/144°.;:'.(hi, ciat'Vat,

;

milli

1P

T

.

i

t ,. .: ,,

BEST COPY AVAILABIE

iG

Appendix 3Data (A flat transcription of the original Japanese speech in Roman script.)

Ah, (clearing throat) Watakushiwa, Eh, Nihon, Eh, Nihon no Fukushima to yu machi no daigaku ninagaku tsutomete otta isha deatte igakusha. Watashino senmon wa, Fijiorojii, Seirigaku nandesu gaWatakushi wa senso-chu ni, Dainiji-sekai-taisen chu ni, Pekin-daigaku no sensei no toki ni, guntai nishoshu salete 7.3.1-butai no shibutai, Pekin no shibutai no nakade Watakushi wa jintai-jikken o meizelaletataiken ga alimasu.

Watakushi no kenkyu wa shocho no kenkyu deshita node, butaicho to yu jokan ni, ningen no hala niFukusoho, Abudominaru-Bindo o tsukutte soshite sole o kantsujuso, hoheiju de motte kantsujuso shite, chono naiyo ga soto ni denai yo ni suru niwa ikanaru kusuli o tsukaeba yoi ka to yu, meilei o ukemashite,akilakani sole wa, chugokujin no holyo, aluiwa, gaikokujin no holyo o tsukatte yoloshii to yu meilei dealimashita keledomo, sole wa, watakushi wa, ningen no inochi o sokonau kikensei de alu dokolo ka,akilaka ni koloshite mo yoi to yu jitai de alimashita node, Watakushi wa gakusei-jidai, aluiwa, jibun notaiken kala, ningen o hito ga, hito o, koloshite wa ikan, aluiwa kolosukoto ni chishiki o kashite wa ikan toyu, nisen-gohyaku-nen mae no Hipokulatesu no chikai o moto ni shite, Watakushi wa jokan no meilei okyohi shita taiken ga alimasu.

Sole-wa-sole-to-shite, ima, watashi ga ima shinpai shite imasu no wa, minasan no kakuheiki, soshiteseibutsu-heiki ga, ima, Nihon ga sole o yalo to shite illu to yu koto desu.

Sakunen no shogatsu, NHK de Nihon no Boeicho wa, Boeicho no naka ni kagaku-heiki bogyoi, bogyoi oBoeicho no jieitai no taiin ni zenbu haikyu sum.

Soshite boeicho no naka ni kagaku-heiki ni kansulu alui wa seibutsu-heiki ni kansulu kenkyu o hajimeruyohodo ga nasale mashita.

Watakushi wa, konnna jotai wa, Nihon no lekishi, sekai no Iekishi ni gyakko sulu mono to omoimasukeledomo, zannen nagala, sono jijitsu wa, shinko shite ilu yo de alimasu.

Danjo no minasama, ittai, Amelika wa, naze, Nihon ni iloilo no soyu kagaku-heiki shotai, osnlakuAmelika no kibo ni yotte soyu mondai ga dete ilu to omoimasu keledomo, Amelika no sensei-tachi, Naze,soyu koto o Amelika wa sulu ka to yu koto o hakkili minasan no ho kala, Amelika no seifu, Amelika nogunbu ni, hantai-iken o tsuyoku dashite itadaki tai.

Watakushi wa shitsumon to yu yoli onegai o moshi agete, watakushi no komento o owalimasu.

Appendix 4Data (A flat transcription of the interpreter's product)

Well... let me introduce myself, I am... actually I had been working for University in Fukushima, and I

was, I ... am a physician, especially I would say a physiologist.... I myself, during the second world war,

... I was drafted into the army..., and I wor..., I joined to the division 731, and I was sent to Beijin, and I

had to do some human experiments in Beijing University.... I was instructed by my subordinate to do the

following operation... Abdominal... er, er, operation have to be done, and we penetrated the abdominal

space', err, in order for when the abdomen be exposed to the outside. What we could do ) prevent from

the internal organs to expose to the outside. That was the objective of the er, sur, er, surgery. And wehad to employ the captive, as a subject of the operations. In those days I felt, that... that was err, quite

contrary to our consciousness... er, conscience...ness, and err, I had err, dead... dread experience. I

firmly believed that we had no rights to kill the err, people, nor the knowledge be accumulated, err... to

the extent that accumulated technology could assist the killing of other people. I actually er, rejected the

order by the err, subordinate in the army, err, to do the operation at Beijing University. Now we aretalking about chemical and biological weapons. The country of Japan is almost start the development

researches in those areas. Last year, Japanese Self Defense Agency of the Japanese government, ... the

TB anounced. (sigh for 2 sec.) the Self Defense Agency is going to provide a protective clothing for the

Self Defense Army.., for any... err, defence purposes against the chemical weapons. And the SelfDefense Agency according to the reporter, err, was going to start researches err, in the area of the err,

chemical weapoons in the name of the defence. I believe that if that decision was correct, that it was the

decision is against the sentiment of the people at this present time. I wonder, why the United States

(sigh in the middle of this 0 sec. of silence).Err, I believe that if there are, were any request from the United States for the Japanese government, err,

to conduct such kind of researches. I really wish that scientists and researchers, from the United Stated, to

protects, pro, pro, protest, err, against any, err, threat or thrust of the United States government of the

army for Japan to conduct such kind of researches, if the information was correct. Thank you Mr.chair

Madam chairman.

1 8 56

Appendix 5Data (an 'ideal' interpretation close to the original word order in Japanese)

words in [ I are inserted for the sake of coherence.

Well, let me introduce myself. In Fukushima in Japan there is a university at which I worked for a longtime as a doctor as well as a scientist.

My speciality is physiology Seiligaku in Japanese.During the war World War 2 - , when I ws a lecturer at Beijing University, I was drafted into the army,and was in a division of 731 unit - that was the Beijing division, I was given an order to experiment onliving bodies.

My research was on the small intestine, so the Officer Commanding - my senior gave me an order. [Theexperiment was as follows.]

Inside human abdomens, an abdominal window was to be made, and then this was to he shot through witha rifle. Then the contents of the intestine were to be examined. How we could prevent the intestine fromcoming out even when the abdomen was shot through [was the question], and what sort of medicine wouldbe best for this purpose. This was the research objective ordered.

Obviously it meant that Chinese captives or other foreign captives were to he used for the experiment.And that was the command.

However, that was, I thought, an operation that endangered human life. Also it evidently accepted killinghumans for research.

So my time at university and my own experience in life made me think that one man must iat killanother, and one must not lend one's knowledge to support murder - which was the 2,500 year oldHippocratic oath. On the basis of this oath, I rejected my senior's order. [So much for my experience.]

Well, bearing this in mind, now, what worries me is the chemical weapons and the biological weaponswhich now Japan has begun to take up.

On New Year's day two years ago, NHK, the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation, reported that theJapanese Defense Agency had decided that in the Agency, chemical weapon protective clothing would bedistributed to all members of the Self Defense Forces.And inside the Defense Agency, chemical or biological weapon research would he begun.

In my view, the news was going against Japanese history, and World history [since WW2].

However, regrettably this situation is still seemingly [worsening].

Ladies and gentlemen on the panel, I wonder, why the United States, in its relationship with lapan....[isintroducing] such various chemical weapons to Japan.

Probably at America's request, suvh issues have been raised.

But ladies and gentlemen from the United States, why does the American government put pressure on theJapanese government in this matter?[This is what] I would like you to question the American government and its army [about].

And I wish that you would strongly protest to the government of the U.S.A. and its army on this matter.

I shall make this plea rather than a question as my comment on this session.Thank you.

57

19